TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1854
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD Board) with the consent of the first Respondent-land owner for the construction of Head works and Staff quarters. In the year 1993, the Appellant-Board constructed the Head works for supply of drinking water and residential Staff quarters. Accepting the recommendation of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram made in the year 1991, by an order dated 30.03.2015, the District Collector, Kancheepuram fixed the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 260/- per cent and the total value of the land was arrived at Rs. 22,490/-. Giving incentive of 12% for every year up to 2012, the value of the land was fixed at Rs. 2,43,001/-. A demand draft of Rs. 2,43,001/- had been sent to the first Respondent by the Appellant-Board vide its letter dated 14.05.2015 which the first Respondent refused to receive and the same was returned. 4. On 31.01.2016, the first Respondent filed Writ Petition No. 3874 of 2016 and on the third day of fling of the petition i.e. on 03.02.2016, the High Court disposed of the said writ petition with direction to the Appellant-Board to submit a report to the District Collector and to ensure that a fair and reasonable co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd value at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. ft. which was the guideline value as on 01.04.2012 and the said order reads as under: 7. During the Private Negotiation meeting conducted on 09.04.2012, it was decided to for value as per the prevailing guideline value as on 01.04.2012. The Sub-Registrar, Walajabad recommended and reported that the guideline value was at the rate Rs. 200/- per sq. ft. for the land in S. No. 271/2A5E in his letter No. 114/2012, dt. 16.04.2012. Accordingly, the District Collector, Kancheepuram in his proceedings dt. 19.05.2012 has fixed the land value at Rs. 200/- per sq. ft. which was the guideline value as on 01.04.2012 and the total value of the land was arrived at Rs. 75,42,800/-. The District Collector also observed that the land value at Rs. 200/- per sq. ft. is fixed and the same may be paid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19.05.2012 till date of payment. The District Collector opined that land value fixed at Rs. 200/- per sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 is a fair and reasonable value considering the classification of the land at the time when Board entered upon the land. Based on the land value fixed by the District Collector, cal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Board and learned senior Counsel for the first Respondent and perused the impugned order and materials on record. 10. The question falling for consideration in this appeal is, in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, whether the learned Single Judge was right in travelling beyond the four corners of the order in W.P. No. 3874 of 2016 dated 03.02.2016 and directing the Appellant-Board to pay the compensation at the rate of Rs. 600/- per sq. ft. 11. In Writ Petition No. 3874/2016, the High Court passed the order dated 03.02.2016 with direction to the authorities to ensure a fair and reasonable compensation be sanctioned to the first Respondent and paid at the earliest. Immediately after the order of the High Court, the Managing Director, TWAD Board wrote a letter dated 03.03.2016 requesting the District Collector, Kancheepuram to fix a fair and reasonable value of the land. Thereafter, the State Level Committee meeting attended by the High Level Officers had been convened and the matter was considered and discussed at length. The State High Level Committee felt that the case would neither fall under the ambit of Land Acquisition Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rate of Rs. 200/- sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 in the manner known to law. In compliance of the order of the High Court, when the amount has been paid to the first Respondent, in our considered view, there was no disobedience or non-compliance of the order of the court to entertain the contempt petition. 14. In Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retired) (2008) 14 SCC 392, the Supreme Court held that whether contempt has been committed or not is not a matter of mechanical application of mind. In a given case, it has to be tested having regard to the subject matter of the proceeding in which it is made and the nexus between the alleged contumacious act. In the Writ Petition No. 3874/2016, the High Court only directed TWAD Board and its officials to ensure just and reasonable compensation be paid to the first Respondent which has been duly complied with by the Board by paying the compensation fixing the land value at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 as per guideline value. In compliance with the order passed by the High Court, when the compensation has been paid to the first Respondent, there was no question of disobedience of the order of the court to maintain th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was heard by the learned Single Judge on 13.02.2017, no affidavit has been filed by any responsible officer that the compensation may be paid to the first Respondent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. Since we are quashing the order of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016, in our considered view, the first Respondent cannot fall back upon statement of the learned Additional Advocate General made in the court. The Respondent cannot take advantage of such oral concession made by the learned Additional Advocate General. 17. In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed. Observing that in the contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been floated, in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Ors. v. M. George Ravishekaran and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 373, speaking for the Bench, Justice Ranjan Gogoi held as under: 19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Cont....